[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

[ORLANDO FRETS]

Jason:
We'll allow you to fly as long as you face away from the runway--you may use
a mirror, maybe. 


Orlando Frets

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:05 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Why not have pilots that wish to move back a class submit a request to
(who?) and then that person contact some pilots in the area to find out the
scoop if it should be allowed or not.

I would allow myself to move back to Advanced... I really should... oops, I
can...hehehehe.

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "Tom
Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment


Just one of the MANY scenarios that supports just having a guideline
approach.  I like the data that PACSS will have, but again, let's use it to
advise people where they best fit, not force them.

I don't know of many trophy hounds that are so UN competitive that they
would fly beneath themselves just for a plaque.  I'm sure they exist...but
I'm also sure they have other more serious problems in life than me worrying
about making them "move up".  lol


On 2/2/09 3:43 PM, "Tom Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com> wrote:

> Mark Atwood wrote:
>> I¹m coming in very late to this discussion, but regardless of the system,
I
>> really think the primary change needs to be that instead of ANY mandatory
>> system, we change the key word to be ³Guideline²...meaning it¹s a
guideline
>> for when to move, but not a fast rule.  This is pattern...a hobby.  Yes,
a
>> competitive one, but there¹s no huge money riding on it (certainly not at
>> the levels that are subjected to this) and there will always be valid
>> exceptions that no system can take into account.  So while we can and
should
>> work on improving the advancement system to be as accurate as possible, I
>> will likely submit a proposal that simply changes the existing system to
be
>> a guideline, rather than mandatory.
>>
>> I personally think that fixes almost everything. (well...with regard to
>> pattern advancement). :)
>>
>> -Mark
>
> In PACSS, Gene already has the underpinnings built and working for
> national results reporting.  I'm not advocating one way or another,
> just throwing out a data point that one of the hardest parts to
> coordinate is already in place.
>
> With regard to mandatory advancement, one aspect that I think deserves
> careful attention is how to handle people getting back into pattern
> after an absence or people who have reached a point in their lives
> where their skills are in decline for one reason or another.
>
> It's sad to see a competitor who progressed into the higher ranks
> years ago and feels obligated to stay there but whose skills are
> obviously not adequate for the class anymore.  If mandatory
> advancement is being considered, there should also be a mechanism to
> move downward as well - instead of just leaving the hobby.

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion